This is an outstanding article, James, for its honesty and common sense.
I, too, share your frustration with how we are supposed to behave regarding our libertarian viewpoint. Like you, my faith has been fervently revived these past few years; but even prior to that revival I sat uncomfortably with declaring myself a libertarian given I have such a longing for tradition. Most of what I read about “tradition” seemed to imply that I couldn’t claim to be libertarian in my thinking. I now know that is just not so.
The only place I would digress with you is government’s role in enforcing any sort of morality on society. They haven’t earned that right and certainly don’t possess any morality of their own to do so. Having said that, I hear your point about establishing parameters so our society stays grounded. I believe the only role they have in that is supporting community groups and our churches to stay the course on this. But alas, that is for an ideal world, and not the technocratic one we currently inhabit.
The article had me riveted to my seat. I praise you James for writing so courageously and personally.
No one of us has to agree with our opponent's stereotype of us as hedonists with drug-addled brains! That's the reactionary - and dare I suggest un-Christian - caricature of the Lyle Sheltons of the world.
I, a committed libertarian, do not smoke, drink alcohol, take drugs nor am I permiscuous. I've never done these things. Gracious, I don't even drink tea or coffee! This is my choice, my free will. These personal traits sit consistently with libertarianism for the here and now, with Christianity for the ever after. No contradiction. Hand-in-glove stuff.
Your article is clearly not a call for theocracy, as another has commented. This is a chronical of one young man's journey of growth.
James,. you beautifully took us through the gap which emerges if a political philosophy, in this case libertarianism, is adopted in isolation.
As was succinctly described in Libertarianism Is An Ideology But Not A World View (see here https://www.libertyitch.com/p/libertarianism-is-an-ideology-but-not-a-world-view), Ludwig von Mises himself said libertarianism is not meant to be a substitute for religion. Quoting that article: "Libertarianism is concerned exclusively with society, particularly the way it is organised and governed. It possesses neither a cosmogony, nor a cosmology, distinguishing it from classical, if controversial, definitions of religion."
I put it this way: libertarianism is temporal, Christianity is spiritual.
I too am both Christian and Libertarian. So I can see your point that these are not inconsistent ideas. In fact I see God-given free will as the starting point for libertarianism.
Nevertheless, I feel it is crucial that politics and religion are kept apart. These past few years of scandalous covid responses, during which several other scandals have also been revealed, have been cheered by some of the world's most senior religious leaders. The Archbishop of Canterbury told Anglicans that Jesus Christ would have taken the vaccinations had he taken human form on earth at the time. Pope Francis had coins minted with an image of a healthy young person accepting vaccination. For goodness sake, most Christians don't even observe the fourth commandment. So, if we are to enforce religious opinions on the people using the armed agencies of the state, whose religious opinions should be selected?
In fact I think it would not be too much of an exaggeration to say that one of the great mistakes of the covid responses was exactly this, the imposition of religious/moral opinions by the state.
I would suggest that the state should adopt the liberal democratic principle that people have the right to be left to get on with their lives, unrestricted, limited only by our duty to do no harm. (Negative rights and duties). In other words, I believe the state certainly should not impose constraints on behaviours that do not harm others. My father J. H. Pain wrote a short book on this point in 2007, 'Sin and Status, A Tale of Anglo-American Criminal Justice'. In this book he showed the flaws in a system that focused on activities committed by low status people that did not harm others, but that virtually ignored white-collar crimes committed by high status people that did harm others.
Of course, people should be guided away from committing self harm, but by independent religious organisations, not by the state.
Yes Ralph. I agree with "I feel it is crucial that politics and religion are kept apart". I recently saw a post from a Canadian who said "Conservatives - usually those with no faith to draw upon themselves - at their core just want the Christian version of Sharia law." Provocative, I agree, but there is a kernel of truth in it.
In a pluralist society, the answer is JSM's Harm Principle and the NAP. As Liberty Itch writer Jonathan Cole wrote "The freedoms libertarians wish to secure and safeguard for all individuals to develop their own world views is one of the unheralded virtues of their ideology."
And in the end, as Prof Cole stated in a different Liberty Itch article, "Religious freedom is poorly understood in Australia. This has a lot to do with the fact that it is not really a freedom per se, so much as a collection of more fundamental individual freedoms with which people are much more familiar: freedom of conscience, freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom of assembly."
Libertarianism keeps clear of matters spiritual. All it claims is that those freedoms which make upi religious freedom be protected.
This feels like a step too far towards theocracy. Isn’t it the case that the successful imposition of present ideologies of climate, vaccine, immigration, and gender, etc, are the result of governments feeling entitled to impose their morality on the people, in contravention of the rules and principles under which we charged them to do their job? I think that if governments have power to enforce their morality over people, we’ll be straight back to the present madnesses in no time at all.
Potentially, but what I often feel is missed with the "isn't this the same as what we have now" argument is the most important: the content of the morality. In my opinion, the fact that government sometimes imposes morally based laws is not the problem, it's which morally based laws they impose.
Vaccine mandates, gender madness and the other things you listed are principly poor morals. In fact, I think the generic libertarian idea of letting the free market determine where unvaccinated people should be free to go and allowing mentally ill people to mutilate themselves under the scope of "individual liberty" is a fundamentally flawed position. I would prefer to live in a society where governments actively prevented private entities from imposing vaccine-based restrictions and where physically healthy people mutilating themselves is not tolerated.
I understand the concern, but there are moral values which, if followed, lead to objectively better outcomes for society. Similarly, there are values which, if followed, objectively lead to the fragmentation and desecration of functioning society.
We should be advocating the former regardless of whether that may sometimes increase the size and scope of government.
This is probably a topic worthy of its own article. However, I think a succinct example of something, which followed, has desecrated functioning society is the gender madness.
To enable mental illness and allow people to mutilate their healthy bodies is a societal failure that has led to objectively worse outcomes. The libertarian response, while somewhat nebulous, typically opposes the chemical castration and genital mutilation of children but permits adults to do as they wish. In my opinion, this is an insufficient response.
This is an outstanding article, James, for its honesty and common sense.
I, too, share your frustration with how we are supposed to behave regarding our libertarian viewpoint. Like you, my faith has been fervently revived these past few years; but even prior to that revival I sat uncomfortably with declaring myself a libertarian given I have such a longing for tradition. Most of what I read about “tradition” seemed to imply that I couldn’t claim to be libertarian in my thinking. I now know that is just not so.
The only place I would digress with you is government’s role in enforcing any sort of morality on society. They haven’t earned that right and certainly don’t possess any morality of their own to do so. Having said that, I hear your point about establishing parameters so our society stays grounded. I believe the only role they have in that is supporting community groups and our churches to stay the course on this. But alas, that is for an ideal world, and not the technocratic one we currently inhabit.
Thank you for writing this.
Thank you for your kind words, Geradine.
The article had me riveted to my seat. I praise you James for writing so courageously and personally.
No one of us has to agree with our opponent's stereotype of us as hedonists with drug-addled brains! That's the reactionary - and dare I suggest un-Christian - caricature of the Lyle Sheltons of the world.
I, a committed libertarian, do not smoke, drink alcohol, take drugs nor am I permiscuous. I've never done these things. Gracious, I don't even drink tea or coffee! This is my choice, my free will. These personal traits sit consistently with libertarianism for the here and now, with Christianity for the ever after. No contradiction. Hand-in-glove stuff.
Your article is clearly not a call for theocracy, as another has commented. This is a chronical of one young man's journey of growth.
James,. you beautifully took us through the gap which emerges if a political philosophy, in this case libertarianism, is adopted in isolation.
That's why I wrote "Christian doctrine champions free will, advocating that individuals are morally accountable for their choices, a notion that resonates deeply with libertarian values" in Libertarian, Go To Church This Christmas (see here: https://www.libertyitch.com/p/libertarian-go-to-church-this-christmas?utm_source=publication-search)
As was succinctly described in Libertarianism Is An Ideology But Not A World View (see here https://www.libertyitch.com/p/libertarianism-is-an-ideology-but-not-a-world-view), Ludwig von Mises himself said libertarianism is not meant to be a substitute for religion. Quoting that article: "Libertarianism is concerned exclusively with society, particularly the way it is organised and governed. It possesses neither a cosmogony, nor a cosmology, distinguishing it from classical, if controversial, definitions of religion."
I put it this way: libertarianism is temporal, Christianity is spiritual.
And Bob Day openly talked of them working together when he wrote in How Christianity Informs Classical Liberalism (see here https://www.libertyitch.com/p/how-christianity-informs-classical-liberalism?utm_source=publication-search) when he wrote "Family, faith and freedom are without doubt the best bulwarks against division and authoritarianism."
Far from being "politically homeless", you are walking a well-rodden path of faith and liberty combined.
As President of the Christian Libertarian Initiative, welcome to the fold!
I too am both Christian and Libertarian. So I can see your point that these are not inconsistent ideas. In fact I see God-given free will as the starting point for libertarianism.
Nevertheless, I feel it is crucial that politics and religion are kept apart. These past few years of scandalous covid responses, during which several other scandals have also been revealed, have been cheered by some of the world's most senior religious leaders. The Archbishop of Canterbury told Anglicans that Jesus Christ would have taken the vaccinations had he taken human form on earth at the time. Pope Francis had coins minted with an image of a healthy young person accepting vaccination. For goodness sake, most Christians don't even observe the fourth commandment. So, if we are to enforce religious opinions on the people using the armed agencies of the state, whose religious opinions should be selected?
In fact I think it would not be too much of an exaggeration to say that one of the great mistakes of the covid responses was exactly this, the imposition of religious/moral opinions by the state.
I would suggest that the state should adopt the liberal democratic principle that people have the right to be left to get on with their lives, unrestricted, limited only by our duty to do no harm. (Negative rights and duties). In other words, I believe the state certainly should not impose constraints on behaviours that do not harm others. My father J. H. Pain wrote a short book on this point in 2007, 'Sin and Status, A Tale of Anglo-American Criminal Justice'. In this book he showed the flaws in a system that focused on activities committed by low status people that did not harm others, but that virtually ignored white-collar crimes committed by high status people that did harm others.
Of course, people should be guided away from committing self harm, but by independent religious organisations, not by the state.
Yes Ralph. I agree with "I feel it is crucial that politics and religion are kept apart". I recently saw a post from a Canadian who said "Conservatives - usually those with no faith to draw upon themselves - at their core just want the Christian version of Sharia law." Provocative, I agree, but there is a kernel of truth in it.
In a pluralist society, the answer is JSM's Harm Principle and the NAP. As Liberty Itch writer Jonathan Cole wrote "The freedoms libertarians wish to secure and safeguard for all individuals to develop their own world views is one of the unheralded virtues of their ideology."
And in the end, as Prof Cole stated in a different Liberty Itch article, "Religious freedom is poorly understood in Australia. This has a lot to do with the fact that it is not really a freedom per se, so much as a collection of more fundamental individual freedoms with which people are much more familiar: freedom of conscience, freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom of assembly."
Libertarianism keeps clear of matters spiritual. All it claims is that those freedoms which make upi religious freedom be protected.
Thanks Kenelm!
This feels like a step too far towards theocracy. Isn’t it the case that the successful imposition of present ideologies of climate, vaccine, immigration, and gender, etc, are the result of governments feeling entitled to impose their morality on the people, in contravention of the rules and principles under which we charged them to do their job? I think that if governments have power to enforce their morality over people, we’ll be straight back to the present madnesses in no time at all.
Potentially, but what I often feel is missed with the "isn't this the same as what we have now" argument is the most important: the content of the morality. In my opinion, the fact that government sometimes imposes morally based laws is not the problem, it's which morally based laws they impose.
Vaccine mandates, gender madness and the other things you listed are principly poor morals. In fact, I think the generic libertarian idea of letting the free market determine where unvaccinated people should be free to go and allowing mentally ill people to mutilate themselves under the scope of "individual liberty" is a fundamentally flawed position. I would prefer to live in a society where governments actively prevented private entities from imposing vaccine-based restrictions and where physically healthy people mutilating themselves is not tolerated.
Well, if only it were the God-fearing libertarians and conservatives that wanted their morality enforced by government.
I understand the concern, but there are moral values which, if followed, lead to objectively better outcomes for society. Similarly, there are values which, if followed, objectively lead to the fragmentation and desecration of functioning society.
We should be advocating the former regardless of whether that may sometimes increase the size and scope of government.
Which moral values, if followed, lead to objectively better outcomes for society, James?
This is probably a topic worthy of its own article. However, I think a succinct example of something, which followed, has desecrated functioning society is the gender madness.
To enable mental illness and allow people to mutilate their healthy bodies is a societal failure that has led to objectively worse outcomes. The libertarian response, while somewhat nebulous, typically opposes the chemical castration and genital mutilation of children but permits adults to do as they wish. In my opinion, this is an insufficient response.